tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 5, 2015 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 179 and the nays are 239. the motion is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved.
without objection, the chair appoints the following onferees on h.r. 22. the clerk: from the committee on transportation and infrastructure for consideration of the house amendment and the senate amendment and the modifications committed to conference, mr. shuster, duncan of tennessee, graves of missouri, mrs. miller of michigan, messrs. crawford, barletta, farenthold, gibs, denham, katko, babin, hardy, graves of louisiana, defazio, ms. norton, mr. nadler, ms. brown of florida, ms. eddie bernice johnson of texas, capuano, mrs. napolitano, messrs. lipinski, cohen and sires. and the chair will announce additional conferees at a subsequent time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will appoint additional
conferees at a subsequent time. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, due to my election to the committee on ways and means, this letter is to inform you that i resign my seats on the committees on the budget, small business and transportation and infrastructure. signed sincerely, tom rice. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignations are accepted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. by direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 517, resolved, that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committee of the house of representatives. committee on ways and means, mr. brady of texas, chair, and mr. rice of south carolina. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the
resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. garamendi: support to remove my name from h.r. 3403 as a co-sponsor. 3403. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on financial services may at anytime before 6:00 p.m. on monday, november 9, 2015, file reports to accompany h.r. 1737, h.r. 3139 and h.r. 2010. and, mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. will the gentlewoman suspend. does the gentlewoman mean h.r.
3189? ms. foxx: yes, sir. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the title f the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurent resolution 91 -- concurrent resolution 91, resolved, that when the house adjourns on any legislative day from thursday, november 5, 2015, through thursday november 12, 2015, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, november 16, 2015, or at the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. section 2-a, the speaker or his designee after consultation with the minority leader of the house shall notify the members of the house to reassemble at such place and time as he may
designate in his opinion the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling pursuant to subsection a when the house adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by his majority leader or his designee, the house shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, after marilu ease roberts' father died during the depression, she worked at a laundry and then she trained as a nurse and after pearl harbor she joined the army. mr. holding: she set up a field hospital on the battlefield. it was bombed and killed three nurses. and german artillery killed two more nurses. mary roberts calmly supervised surgeries on soldiers. she was called the angel and was the first woman to win the silver star. today, mr. speaker, all you have to do is open a newspaper to see the cruelest kind of
barbarism has been reborn in the world. isis burns people alive and sells women in slave markets in syria and iraq. on veterans day, let us remember mary roberts and all our veterans and by the grace of god offer a prayer of thanks for the soldiers whose courage keeps us safe at home every day. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: thank you. i rise to honor my friend, william c. wagner, a legendary union leader and a tireless advocate for the hardworking men and women who built this country. mr. wagner first joined the operating engineers in 1951 and rose through the ranks to occupy the highest office in the local union business manager. a position he held for 40 years. while there, he established the
cutting edge crane operators training program which became the model nationwide. mr. wagner's known as a fighter for workers and their families. he believes in fairness above all and has consistently pushed for safety in the workplace, fair wages and benefits and the right to collectively bargain. a way -- away from the union hall he remains devoted to his wife, patty, and his family. and he's committed to his community of long beach, california. many little league baseball players and children with special needs have greatly benefited from his generosity. i humbly thank him for his tireless service, congratulate him on a career well spent and wish him the best in retirement. now, don't be a stranger, wag. you're welcome any time in las vegas. a proud union town. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. paulsen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house
for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: wecks, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: on november 11 we will honor and remember those who serve our country on veterans day and we owe to it to our veterans to keep our promises made to them when they first joined the military. despite bipartisan action to increase efficienciesy and care at v.a., we're still suffering from a lack of transparency that makes it difficult to determine which actions still need to be taken to ensure quality, timely care for our veterans. now we've learned that there are over 140 investigations by the inspector general that were hidden. these investigations were shelved. they were not made available to the public or to congress. that's why i'm supporting bipartisan legislation, the veterans care and reporting enforcement act, that will require reports from the inspector general in these investigations to be made public, to be made available to congress. i want to thank my minnesota colleagues, congressman tom emmer and tim walz,er to about doctor for bringing this legislation forward. it will go a long way toward making the v.a. more
accountable and that the veterans get the care they deserve. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last year when an energy capacity auction increased certain rates in my region from $1 billion to $3 billion, i asked the federal energy regulatory commission to take a close look at those prices and determine whether they were fairly set for consumers. during the review, ferc had only four sitting commissioners and deadlocked 2-2. that meant that rates went into effect by operation of law. and consumers were left with no avenue to appeal. to me, that is unacceptable. so i introduced the fair rates act to ensure that ratepayers are guaranteed an opportunity to have their voices heard. unfortunately last week commissioner phillip muller stepped down, again, leaving ferc with just four commissioners.
without a confirmation or even a nomination for a fifth commissioner in sight, we signed -- refind ourselves in the same situation. ferc once again is reviewing rising rates in my region and, once again, is at risk of a deadlock that would leave consumers holding the bag. that's why we must pass fair rates today. since last year's auction, our rates have jumped another $1 billion. $3 billion is too steep an increase for my constituents to pay because congress will not act. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i come to the floor today to commend my colleagues in the house for passing a second national defense authorization act or the ndaa. the president's decision to veto congress' first ndaa was nothing more than a cheap
political ploy. and marked the first time a president vetoed the ndaa for nonpolicy reasons. today's ndaa authorizes funding to expand fort gordon to accommodate future growth and authorize defense projects at the savannah river site, including the mocks program. cybersecurity is critical to the future of international had warfare and its future home in the army is in augusta, georgia, at fort gordon. this legislation responsibly prepares fort gordon to house the cybercommand. and protect our nation from cyberthreats in the coming years. i was happy to work with many membs of the armed services committee to maintain authorization for these important programs. despite the president's warranted veto, we again fulfilled our duty to support our troops and their families who sacrifice so much to protect our nation. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this house will be leaving today, members will be going back to their districts, and we leave after some dramatic changes have taken place in the house. we elected a new speaker within the past couple of weeks, there's a new open process we've heard about. mr. deutch: we saw much more debate this week. changes that affect this constitution. but there's one thing that -- institution. but there's one thing that has not changed. members of this house will be going home this weekend without this house or our committees having had any opportunity to debate ways to stop the spread of gun violence. we're going to return home in an environment where gun violence continues to plague every corner of this country. and yet we cannot even have the bate here, not only can't we
have the debate, since 1996 there's a prohibition on even having a study on the effects of gun violence in our communities. mr. speaker, it is time for us to stop putting our heads in the sand, congress must act. we must take our responsibilities seriously, to address head-on the scourge of gun violence. we can do something about it and it's time that we do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, next wednesday we will observe veterans day, which is dedicated to the brave men and have served in our armed forces. i believe one of the most important things we can do is to instill respect and honor among our nation's young people for our service men and women.
s a part of veterans day activities, the elementary school students in my hometown of howard will learn about the contributions made by our veterans, both in harm's way and here at home. while educating our young people is important, it is also essential to make sure our veterans have the services and support that they need. this weekend i will be speaking with a group of actively -- those actively involved in caring for our wounded vets, the disabled american veterans or d.a.v. chapter in warren, pennsylvania. the d.a.v. provides a wide range of services from transmitting veterans to doctors' appointments to emphasizing the need for better care, both medically and for behavioral health services. november 11 is veterans day. but we need to strive to make sure we remember the contributions that these men and women make every day of the year. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
mrs. capps: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to address an issue that touches veterans and hundreds of congressional districts across this nation. in 1973, a fire at a u.s. government archives facility destroyed as many as 18 million official military records. this loss has made it incredibly difficult for many veterans to prove the details of their service and has even prevented some from getting the benefits that they deserve. in the years since the fire, some affected files have been pain stakingly reconstructed using unofficial pieces of information, including postmarked letters and offenses. but this process can be confusing. time consuming and costly to the veteran. somehow in 42 years, no system has been established to assist these veterans whose files were lost by no fault of their own in reassembling their resort records. we must simply do better --
their records. we must simply do better. that's why i've introduced the veterans record reconstruction act, to establish a clear set of guidelines for reconstructing a veteran's service record when it's been damaged or destroyed. as we commemorate veterans day this next week, i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, straightforward bill, so every veteran has the opportunity to receive benefits he or she has earned. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the white house initiative on education, excellence for hispanics, and recognize the bright spots that have been identified in florida's 26th congressional district. mr. curbelo: the initiative was established in 1990 to address educational disparities faced by hispanic students.
as part of the 25th anniversary celebration, the initiative released the bright spots in hispanic education catalog to highlight the ongoing efforts in promoting educational achievement. recognizing these bright spots will encourage collaboration between stakeholders to promote best practices and develop effective partnerships. i'm proud to recognize two bright spots in the district i represent. congratulations to florida international university's mastery math lab, and the stem transformation institute. the mastery math lab is a high-tech individualized approach to improving student performance in mathematics. the stem transformation institute is a multi disciplinary collaboration to research and develop effective approaches to stem education. both of these programs have made a substantial impact to the hispanic community in south florida. i'm also very happy to announce other programs in the 26th
district that have made commitments as part of the initiatives to support educational outcomes for latinos. these include achieving community and education student success, teach stem miami, and experience stem miami. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak to the how the to -- to speak to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you to president obama for working with us, to get a real defense authorization bill. and for us to be able to fix the broken defense bill that was passed previously in this house. i was prepared to sustain the veto, but through a very instructive and positive budget resolution that we passed just last week, we've been able to plus up the defense, but we've been able to plus up nondiscretionary spending. today i voted for the defense allingtization -- authorization
and in that included amendments that i offered that were sustained in the conference report, which requires the department of defense to conduct outreach programs to assist small business conserves -- concerns -- small business concerns owned and controlled by women, veterans and socially economic minorities. in addition, my amendment, which provides guidance to the secretary of defense in identifying hbcu's and minority-serving institutions, to assist them in developing and enhancing science, technology, engineering and math, was also kept in the bill. finally, my amendment, which requires the department of defense to evaluate commercial off the shelf business systems for security, resilience and integration, with existing interrelated systems, was also incorporated, so to protect the security of the defense mechanisms, to provide opportunities for small businesses and to work with historically black colleges and minority-serving colleges this bill is a good bill. i again support the fact that we're moving the defense bill forward and we are protecting not only our veterans but we're protecting the men and women
who serve us in the united states military. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. simpson: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of creating access to oral health care, to raise awareness for initiatives that deliver important dental services to underserved communities. this year more than 75 million americans won't visit a dentist, even though nearly half of the people over 30 suffer from some form of gum disease and an estimated 25% of children under the age of 5 already have cavities. it's time to take action. that is why the american dental association launched action for dental health, dentists making a difference. this initiative is a nationwide community-based movement focused on delivering care to people already suffering from dental disease and bringing dental health education and disease prevention to underserved communities. this sunday the american dental association will transform the walter e. washington convention
center into a mission of mercy, a 100-chair dental collin toik treat 1,000 adults and children who don't receive regular dental care. we can grow support for initiatives like these through h.r. 539, the action for dental health act, which will help dentists and others improve the health of americans who need it most. without requiring any additional tax dollars. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 539 and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to recognize the tribe valley ymca which will be celebrating its 50th anniversary. ince 1965, the ymca has been strengthening the towns through its youth development, healthy living and social responsibility programs. among these is its work to promote our children's confidence and relationships, positive leadership, civic engagement and community compassion.
through child learning centers, camp programs, youth in government and family support programs, the y is providing enriching education and life experiences for all children and teams in our communities. -- teens in our communities. mr. swalwell: all of its programs and activities are open to everyone regardless of the family's ability to pay. led by executive director kelly doca, the trivalley ymca has extended its community giving and has distributed nearly $1 million in household supplies last year. beyond personal character development, the y has become a valuable safety net in our district, nurturing the potential of all children involved in their activities, helping people of all ages improve their health and providing opportunities for the community to come together and support its other. congratulations to the staff and board of director of the trivalley ymca of 50 years of selfless giving to our community. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to recognize the inaugural observance of national apprenticeship week. across the united states, hundreds of thousands of apprenticeship programs are helping to prepare workers for today's high-skilled in-demand jobs. for far too long there's been a discrepancy of what children are learning in the classroom and what employers say they need in the workplace. apprenticeships are key to narrowing that skills gap because they offer students a low cost and in many cases a no apprenticeship. they earn an average starting salary of $50 thoubd and go on to make $300,000 more than their nonapprenticeship peers over the course of their career. employers who invest in these work-based learning programs are attracting and retaining highly qualified employees.
they're also seeing results in the form of increased productivity and greater innovation. apprenticeships can change lives, and i look forward to seeing how these valuable programs continue to strengthen america's work force. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? mr. yoder: mr. speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yoder: mr. speaker, i rise today to congratulate the 2015 world series champion, the kansas city royals. some of my fondest memories growing up come from listening to the royals play-by-play in the radio while riding with my dad in his tractor while plowing our family farm. it was filled with many exciting momentes that will inspire life-long memories for a new generation. it was particularly exciting for my family as my wife delivered a beautiful baby girl, eloise jane, just hours
after the world series victory. perhaps the most memorable moment for all of kansas city was eric hosmer making a mad dash home to score in the 17th hour and 38 minute tying game five in new york which the royals will eventually go on to win. mr. speaker, this royals team was backed by a unified kansas city, unifying both kansans and missourians and these royals embodied the midwestern spirit. they worked hard, played as a team, always hustled and never gave up. so mr. speaker, on behalf of the house of representatives and for the first time since 1985, i'd like to say congratulations to the best team in baseball, the kansas city royals, and their most valuable player, salvador perez. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today on a motion pursuant to this order it meet on november 9 unless it sooner has received a message
from the senate transmitting its concurrence in house concurrent resolution 91 in which case the shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution and further that the order of the house of january 6, 2015, regarding morning hour debate not apply on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i was unavoidably detained on -- november 3, 2015, another 2, -- november 2, 2015, and i'd like to offer the following roll call fots. on roll call number 585 i would have voted no. on roll call vote number 585 i would have voted aye. number 586 i would have voted aye. on 587 i would have voted no. 588 i would have voted no.
589 aye. 590 aye. 591 would have voted aye. 592 aye. roll call 593 would have voted aye. i would appreciate if these be placed in the appropriate part of the record. let me congratulate the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, for his new baby girl. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced the of january 6, 2015, gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. fox, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. ensuring americans are capable of filling the skills gap and finding quality jobs through stakeholder-led an accountable work force development programs has been one of my highest priorities in washington. that is why i was so proud last congress to see legislation i sponsored, the work force
innovation and opportunity act, or wioa, enacted into law. wioa was the first major work force development program to be enacted in more than 15 years, and included many vital provisions to modernize, streamline and localize our work force development system. the highway bill that passed the house earlier today included a frontline work force development program intended to address human resources needs in public transportation that was not subject to the reforms contained within wioa. in order to ensure that program is assessed consistently with other federal work force development programs and targeted to areas that have identified needs in public transportation as part of their broader work force development programs, i introduced a bipartisan amendment to the highway bill with my colleague
from washington, ms. delbene, that applied wioa's performance measures and coordination reforms to the program. all of our federal work force development programs should be assessed in a consistent manner and be considered as part of an overall package tailored to state and local needs that provide stakeholders on the ground greater input and control. that is why i'm also pleased the house adopted our bipartisan amendment as part of the broader transportation package and strengthen the frontline work force development program in order to better serve the workers who learn skills through the program and those policymakers who evaluate the programs to improve its future outcomes. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i appreciate that everyone's gone back to their office but you and me. i appreciate you sticking around to get this hour in. it's not going to be an exciting hour. ordinarily i bring down charts and graphs and try to share
something in a visual way that folks might not have seen before. today it's just words because words matter. mr. speaker, we just finished in this chamber this fantastic -- you've heard me say it. it was a festival of democracy. we had every member who had an amendment brought them to the rules committee, we made over 100 of them in order. it's been three days, mr. speaker, and we passed in a very bipartisan way federal transportation policy for the first time in more than a decade. democrats failed to get it done. republicans had failed to get it done. we as 435 individual members, representing diverse constituents across the nation, we came together today and we got it done. they said it couldn't be done. chairman bill shuster of pennsylvania said it could be done. ranking member pete defazio out of oregon said it could be done, and we did it. something has happened, mr. speaker, in this town that has people identifying as democrats
or republicans first and as members of this body, of the article 1 legislature second, and it's bad. it's bad for the country. it's bad for the people we represent. it's bad process. mr. speaker, that's what i want to talk about today. you can't see the chart that i have here, but it's a quote from president obama. you will remember it. back in august of 2013. you will remember we worked together with the president nine different times we repealed portions of the president's health care bill. we repealed them. they were unworkable. he knew it. we knee it. we came together nine times. he signed legislation into law that repealed part of the president's health care bill. but it was the -- it was the summer there of 2013, and we were talking about how to come together on some of the bigger problems in the president's health care bill. you remember the mandates were getting ready to go into effect, the individual mandates
and the country wasn't ready. the country was not ready. we all knew it. every member from left to right, mr. speaker, knew it. the president held a press conference and he said this. "in a normal political environment it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law. it has to do with, for example, are we able to simplify the attestation of employers as to whether they're already providing health insurance or not. it looks like there may be some better ways to do this." this is president obama speaking. "better ways to do this. let's make a technical change to the law." the president goes on to say, mr. speaker, "that would have been the normal thing that i would prefer to do. but we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to obamacare," the president says. "we did have the executive thority to do so, and we did
so." mr. speaker, this was from that very contentious time trying to solve problems for the american people, again, problems the white house knew existed, the problems congress knew existed. the president said if it was ordinary time like -- times like in the past 225 years, i'd have called the united states congress and say the constitution gives you article 1 powers to legislate and i need a legislative change made because the law's not working. but he didn't and he said he didn't and he said he wasn't going to. e said he was going to go it alone and the disappointment in that decision in this body was very partisan, mr. speaker. t was very partisan. i don't know how we get past the allegiance to the president because he is from our party.
republicans did this when george bush was in office. democrats are doing this when president obama is in office. it's not about who the president is. it's about what the president does, what the president does is implement the laws that we pass. he doesn't change the laws, and every time we fail on behalf of our constituents to stand together as 435 representatives of the people and instead become representatives of the republican party or the democratic party, we fail america. mr. speaker, what i have here is a chart of the supreme court decision in the nlrb v. noel canning case. you may remember that one. i had just gotten to congress, mr. speaker, i had just gotten to congress. the president was talking about making appointments, and as you know, the advise and consent clause of the constitution says the president can make appointments but he needs to get the consent of the senate to do so. well, the senate wouldn't give
him consent, and so while the senate was away for a day, the president went in to the recess appointment clause of the constitution. in fact, he got a big letter from the legal department there at the white house that said he had the powers to pretend that senate had adjourned for the session and to go ahead and make appointments anyway. . the protest of the president usurping congressional authority was partisan. republicans said no, democrats say, ah. he probably has the right to do it anyway. we didn't stand up for the people we represent, we didn't stand up for the constitution we swore to uphold, mr. speaker, we divided ourselves by party instead of uniting ourselves on principle. we had to go to the supreme court, mr. speaker, the supreme court can't decide on anything
unanimously. if the question is, what time are we going to meet today to talk about cases, it's a 5-4 decision, you know this to be true. but the supreme court came together and said, that's crazy. that's crazy. the president of the united states can't just pretend he's king. he's not the king. to quote, and i'm paraphrasing when i say that, mr. speaker, but to quote the supreme court decision, they said this. regardless, the recess appointments clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. it provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the senate is away during a recess. here, as in other contexts, friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of ur constitutional structure.
that makes me feel good. it makes me feel good. because, mr. speaker, i go back home all the time and constituents say, rob, why can't you get more done? why can't you get more done? it turns out, it's because of this. it's because of this constitution that said, listen, if congress is at work, your liberties and freedoms may be under attack. right? what we do hear isn't generally to give freedoms back to people. generally what we do is to restrict freedoms a little bit here. we want it to be slow here in the house, we're a little faster. there in the senate, they're supposed to be a little slowers, mr. speaker, but it's supposed to be hard. it's supposed to be the inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. but, mr. speaker, this body, not republicans in this body, not democrats in this body, but this body collectively was down as power flowed
pennsylvania avenue, away from the article 1 legislature, down to the article 2 executive. it took the article 3 courts, mr. speaker, to write our constitutional framework, shame on us. shame ounce. collectively, for not standing up. mr. speaker, my constituents are frustrated by the pace of progress in this town. they are frustrated by what looks like the politicalization -- by the politics that are being played here, mr. speaker, when policies should be our focus. i think it's up to us to education folks, to proudly say, it is the inevitable consequence of our constitutional structure. but when we stand together, as we have this week on this transportation bill, there's still more that unites us as a country than that divides us. environmental leadership, mr.
speaker. it's one of those areas of overreach that this particular white house is aggressively engaged in. again, the pushback has been partisan pushback. it has not been article 1 legislative pushback, as it should. i want to go back to prior presidents, mr. speaker. i'll look at republican presidents. i'm a republican. i'll look at what it looked like when the republicans were running the show in the white house. you know the e.p.a. was signed into law by richard nixon, mr. speaker. on the creation of the e.p.a., president nixon said this, he said, the reorganizations which i am here proposing afford both the congress and the executive branch an opportunity to re-evaluate the adequacy of the existing program authorities involved in these consolidations. i look forward to working with the congress in this task. the congress, the administration, and the public all share a profound commitment to the rescue of our natural
environment. richard nixon had a calling when it comes to the environment, mr. speaker. he had a calling. he didn't say, i'm the president of the united states, i'm just going to rewrite the entire environmental code and dictate that it's the law of the land. he came to congress and said, protecting our natural resources is a shared american value. it's a shared american value. i'm going to go to congress, i'm going to win the votes, we're going to change the law, and we're going to make it so. the clean air act, mr. speaker, signed into law in 1990 by president george h.w. bush. he said this, he said, today i'm signing s. 1630, a bill to amend the clean air act. i take great pleasure in signing it. as a demonstration to the american people of my determination that each and every american shall breathe clean air. passage of this bill is an indication that the congress shares my commitment to a strong clean air act.
how do you know, mr. speaker, if congress shares your commitment, if you don't bring the language to congress to have congress radify it? -- ratify it? the president can propose all the legislation he wants to, we still have to pass it. if our frustration about results allows us to let folks short cut the constitutional process, we will all, 330 million of us, suffer. i remember when president reagan was trying to raise the gas tax, mr. speaker. i talk about that because we were talking about transportation bill this week and transportation funding this week. he stood on the lawn, mr. speaker, there beside the rose garden, and he said, we deserve a world class infrastructure in america. and i propose that we double the gas tax. yes, this is conservative ronald reagan talking about
doubling taxes in order to build america. america didn't agree with him, yet he went out there and sold it. how did we get fundamental tax reform in this country, mr. speaker, in 1986? the country wasn't ready for fundamental tax reform. the congress couldn't agree on fundamental tax reform. ronald reagan took it and sold it every single day until he got it done. that's what's supposed to happen. we work together to accomplish these priorities. past presidents have done exactly that. mr. speaker, it wasn't two weeks ago we were in here talking about the president's overreach on the department of labor fiduciary rule. you remember that bill, we had it here on the floor of the house, mr. speaker, where the president just decided, through the department of labor, that longstanding investment law, as determined by the s.e.c., was no longer going to be the law of the land, that the department of labor was going to take on some new rulemaking authorities in this area.
the president wanted to make some changes. congress didn't want to make changes. the president said this. he said, what i won't accept is the notion that there's nothing we can do. so we're going to keep pushing for this rule. keep pushing, mr. speaker, didn't mean come to congress to sell you and to sell me. pushing didn't mean go to the united states senate to build a coalition. pushing meant ignoring the congress and going straight away. now i point this out as a success, mr. speaker. i point this out as a success because our opposition to this wasn't partisan. our opposition to this, mr. speaker, was bipartisan. i have here a letter from september, mr. speaker. signed by 90 democrats that said, mr. president, don't do this. don't do this. this is not the proper path forward.
the flurryality of the democratic caucus here -- the plurality of the democratic caucus here said, mr. president, don't go forward. the president drove forward anyway. mr. speaker, the times that i've seen the president change his mind in my 4 1/2 years in congress have not been because of my persuasive oratory or even by the strength of this institution. it's been because the american people have spoken. when the american people speak the president is a good listener. and what the president is hearing today is the ends justify the means. i need results and so however you get those results, mr. president, i'll be behind you. we're starting to turn that corner, mr. speaker, because i promise you, whatever is good for democrats today is going to be bad for democrats tomorrow. whatever is bad for republicans today is going to be good for republicans tomorrow. the parties will change, the political environment will change. but when you short circuit the
process, the short circuiting lasts forever. we change expectations of the american people. we change expectations what have the constitution means, mr. speaker. i applaud 90 of my democratic colleagues standing with this congress saying, mr. president, don't go it alone. mr. speaker, this isn't something that i'm just coming up with out of thib air, when the president -- thin air, when the president wasn't president obama, when he was senator obama, he had these same concerns. he spoke out time and time again about overreaches of presidents george bush -- of president george bush. oftentimes he spoke out alone. republicans weren't standing with him. to speak out. because it was a republican president. republicans said, you know what, i want to support my president, so even if he is coloring outside the lines a little bit, it's probably important to the country that he do so. that's a failure. that's a failure. because our primary job here is not to be republicans or
democrats, our primary job is to be article 1 representative of the american people. the president said this on immigration. he's talking at a univision town hall meeting in 2011, mr. speaker. he said, this does not mean, though, we can't make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who have engaged in criminal activity. this was the beginning of his program. but he goes on to say, it also doesn't mean that we can't strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law. time and time again folks would ask him to do what he could as the executive to change immigration law and he would say, listen, i'm not the king, i'm the president. the congress has to change the law. i can only enforce the law. he was right. he was right each and every time that he said that. the administration can propose but we have to implement.
so fast forward to about this time last year, mr. speaker, and the president says this, he says, to those member of congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better or question the wisdom of my acting where congress has failed, i have but one answer, pass a bill. pass a bill, he says. in the meantime, i'm just going to do things the way i want to do things. that's the opposite of the, i'm just a bill sitting here on capitol hill song we learned as children, mr. speaker. the bill comes first. the law change comes last. after the president signs the law it becomes -- signs the bill, it becomes the law. we have to propose it first. how many meetings have you had with the president, mr. speaker? where he's pushing his immigration agenda, trying to get you to buy into his bill? the answer's zero. because he doesn't have a bill and he hasn't been knocking on any of our doors and my democratic friends would say the same. how many meetings with the president have you had, mr. speaker, where the president's trying to persuade you about
his fiduciary rule and why that change is important for meck and why we should move that bill forward? the sean zero because he's never come to capitol hill to make that pitch. he's not making it to democrats and he's not making it to republicans. he's going it alone. how many times has the president come and knocked on your door, mr. speaker, to try to sell you on his ozone regulations? or his clean energy plan? and on and on and on. and the answer is he hasn't and we have been complicit in allowing that unilateral action. it's bad for america, it is not the process that our framers envisioned. it's what the president said on immigration. that same univision town hall meeting. the question was, mr. president, my question will be as follows, with an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of students? mr. speaker, i'm not down here talking about immigration policy today. i'm not. our immigration system is broken.
i represent constituents, mr. speaker, who have had family members on the list not for five years, not for 10 years, not for 15 years, but for 20 years and more, standing in line waiting for their chance to come to america. our system is broken. i have employers who want to build in our district, they can't get the people they need from their home countries to come and manage those operations. our system is broken. we all know it. we have a chance to fix it. but when the president goes around the congress, he doesn't fix it, he breaks it further. he says this. with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed and i know that everybody here is studying hard, so you know that we've got three branches of government. congress passes the law, the executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those
laws, and then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. there are enough laws on the books by congress, the president says, that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system. that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. . mr. speaker, the words of president obama, there are enough laws on the books by congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those constitutional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. march, 2011, you wouldn't know
that's what he believed in november of 2015. mr. speaker, what happened in those four years? what happened in those four years? and what has happened, we have been silent as a body. we have been vocal as republicans and democrats but silent as a representative body. article 1 of the constitution, it is our job to legislate and rein those r job to presidents who would legislate on our behalf. what our framers feared was an all powerful executive. that's what they come from and what we should fear today, not a republican or democratic president but an all powerful president. congress passes the law, the president enforces it. mr. speaker, if you want to know
the outcome of that overreach, if you want to know where congress is. the president isn't selling those but with a phone and pen. you want to know what the other two branches of government think , the judiciary said no. the congress said no. it is not a confusion about where the different branches of government are. we have one branch that is saying yes and that's the executive who has no law-making authority. the branch that makes the law, the legislative branch and the judiciary branch. we are united in those. what we are not united on is the yes. we talk about bipartisanship in this chamber. what is bipartisan is the opposition to the presidential overreach.
that's what's bipartisan. the support for it is bipartisan. the minority of folks is supporting the president. 's bipartisan -- some ways it's not strong enough. it's that we owe our constituents better. it's that we owe them better. my voting card has my name on it. it doesn't belong to me but 700,000 folks back at home who didn't send me here to satisfy my priorities but their priorities. and i don't believe that as a nation, mr. speaker, we believe the ends justify the means. i hope that we don't. i hope we have not fallen so far, mr. speaker, that we now believe the constitution as the rule book for america is less important than what the results are. anybody involved in manufacturing, mr. speaker,
knows if you have a flawed process, you are going to produce a flawed product. only with a good process can you produce a good product. the constitution gives us a good process. when we ignore it, we have a flawed process and a flawed product. i'll go to the president's environmental policy, mr. speaker and i want to make it clear. i represent a district that plays outside, i would argue more than any other district. you love cleaning air and water, come down to my part of the world. you want folks who love green space, who love parks, who love national trailways and bikeways, come down to my part of the world. we'll ride a bike and push a stroller. we want to be outside. if the president said, mother earth is in peril and i need you
to solve that problem, i would be the best listener. that is not the process. the president's clean power plan, this is shutting down power plants in the great state of georgia. this is the position of the administration to protect mother earth, we are going to close down the power plant that we spent billions of dollars improving to meet the last round of regulations and with those power plants closed down, we are going to spend billions more. i promise you that is not going to result in fewer emissions in the atmosphere if we let the plants run out the useful life. but we didn't get to vote on that, mr. speaker. that was an executive decree. waters of the u.s. that's the bill -- when it was a
bill, we rejected it but an initiative from the white house that said the framework we had in this country for 100 years of the federal government controlling navigable waterways and local and state governments controlling the waterways, if a drop falls, it is the federal government's authority to regulate. we can't be trusted? nonsense. my district sits on a continental divide. we have built $1 billion water treatment plant and while have the districts on the other side of the continental divide, we know that the river basin is in water deficit and so we spend money pumping the water back up from one side of the continental divide so we can let it go in the basin that needs the water
so badly. we are stewards, mr. speaker. not stewards with your money and not spending anybody else's money but our money, because we believe in taking care of america's natural resources. not selling it to the american people, but with the pen and phone, federalized water across the board. where was the bipartisan outcry? and the ozone air quality standards. if you are confused, we never get those implemented. those still haven't gone into effect yet. the president has dropped a new set of ozone standards. not because congress passed something, we didn't but the president thought it was important and he wrote the law for himself. how does congress feel about this? well, turns out members of this body said if this is the
direction the president wants to go. pitch to e this congress and see if congress agrees with the president. carbon emissions, the cap and trade, clean power plan rejected. waters of the u.s., rejected. ozone standards, rejected. it isn't that congress hasn't spoken on these issues, mr. speaker. we have. we have. it's not that the president doesn't know what the article one congress wants, he does, he just doesn't like what the article one congress decided and so he has decided to do it himself and we've been complicit in allowing that to happen. not even we, 435, but 320 million and there's going to be a price to pay for that. mr. speaker, congress is active on these issues, active on these issues.
it's not that folks in this body don't care, we care deeply. we passed the rains act and said if the president is going to do rules on his own, we have to review. assed 243-165. regulatory protection act for those jurisdictions like mine where the local governments are taking such good care of our natural resources, trying to protect their right to continue to protect our local natural resources. passed, 261-155. the ratepayer protection act, you need to spend workable for the next generation and now you are telling us we have to close those power plants. that can't be the right way to get clean energy or stewards of taxpayer dollars. passed that bill 247-180. the e.p.a. science advisory
board act. we can't figure out what the factsr we never are going to agree what the solution is, so let's have a standard for what good science looks like that we can rally together around. passed here in the house. mr. speaker, folks aren't confused where the congress is on this issue. the president is not confused about where the congress is on this issue. the president believes the ends justify the means. article 1 congress passes the law. article 2, white house, enforces the law. article 3, judiciary, interprets the law. the judiciary had a chance to do a little interpreting and had a chance to look at the waters of the u.s. and the clean water issue and the court said this. this is the sixth circuit court of appeals. what is of greater concern to us in balancing the harms is the
burden potentially visited nationwide on governmental bodies, state and federal, as well as on private parties and the impact on the public in general implicated on the rules drawing lines over the nation's waters. the court said, we are worried about the impact on america. i don't want the court to be worried but the law of the land is. i want the congress to be worried. i want the president to be listening to congress and enforcing the laws that congress has passed and has taken the courts to say, mr. president, you have gone a bit too far. the ripple effect caused by this rule, definitional changes counts in strongly maintaining the status quo. this is still being litigated. the court says the detrimental impact of this new rule that congress has never seen except in the form we rejected it, the damage to america is so severe,
we are going to issue an in junction to prevent the president from going forward. it gives me no pride to have nine justices in robes running the united states of america. americans elected a president to implement the law and they elected a congress to write the law and we should be doing that together. we found ourselves powerless in doing that, asking the courts to solve that issue instead. courts go on, neither is there any indication that the integrity of the nation's waters will suffer imminent injury if the new scheme is not immediately implemented. that's why they allowed the injunction. there is no harm coming. there's time to sort this out.
they need time to sort it out in the courts. what about time to sort it out in the congress? who loves the waters of the u.s. bill? they should make their pitch, the president should come and make his pitch. when was the last time you saw him on tv? you haven't seen him on tv selling it. when have you seen him selling the ozone standards? he is not doing it. and the list goss on. we have to ask him to get out there and sell it. your job as president isn't just to do it, but to get the congress to allow you to do it. to sell the american people who will sell the congress, who will change the law of the land. mr. speaker, i don't know if you know this harvard law professor and he was president obama's constitutional law professor. i wouldn't call him a
conservative. lawrence tribe says this about the clean power plan, he said to justify the clean power plan, the e.p.a. has rewritten the history of an obscure section of the clean air act. frustration with congressional inaction cannot justify throwing the constitution overboard to rescue this lawless e.p.a. proposal. mr. speaker, i want you to follow that rationale. this isn't something that has snuck up on us here in the past few weeks, here in the past few months, here in the past few years. the president dug deep into a 45-year-old law and said it appears to me we have misunderstood this law the past 45 years.
misunderstood it. and apparently, 45 years ago, we absolutely made an effort through congress and the white house to give the president the authority, in fact, the obligation, to rewrite america's energy laws in this fashion. nonsense. nonsense. president's constitutional professor. frustration with congressional inaction cannot justify throwing the constitution overboard to rescue this lawless e.p.a. proposal. i get the frustration. get it we if we had frustration meters mine would be around the top. but the way to address that frustration isn't to take my toys and go home. the way to address the frustration is to find somebody on the other side of the aisle who i think i can trust, who i think i can talk to, who i think i can work with, and work
together to find an answer. work together to find a solution. what is absent -- what is absent in all these proposals i have listed, mr. speaker, is anyone working together to make this proposal the law of the land. the only working together that's happening, mr. speaker, are folks working together to prevent these proposals from being the law of the land. process matters. process matters. mr. speaker, i'm going to finish close to where i began. i was a new congressman, just been elected, 700,000 people in the great state of georgia, counting on me to be their voice. counting on me to succeed on heir priorities.
right out of the gate the president said, you know what, i've been trying to get the people i want appointed to a board and the senate won't do what i want them to do. because the senate won't to what i want them to do, i'm going to do it by myself. when did that become ok, mr. speaker? we suffer from a little of that here. house won't do what i want it to do, i'm going to take my toys and go home. house won't do what i i want it to do, i'm going to shut down the works and gum up the process. guess what in a representative democracy, nobody does what you want them to do, mr. speaker. you've got to go out and find 51% of america to agree with you and that's when you get things done. i do not fault the president for his policies, though i disagree with him on them. i fault him for implementing those policies unilaterally, unconstitutionally, instead of going out and selling america on them. that's what's so great about
this institution, mr. speaker. if you have the votes, you don't have to fuss about it. folks come down to the house floor, gnashing of teeth, tearing of clothes, self-flagellation going on here on the floor on a regular basis. if you have the votes, you don't have to make a scene. you just got to go out and win the votes. you have to go out and win the argument. if you win the argument, the law will change. mr. speaker, america works. america works. the constitution works. you just have to follow it. you just have to believe in it. you have to believe in the constitution. you have to believe in the american people. that it governs. 9-0, the supreme court told the white house and its entire legal team that crafted a too cute by half explanation of why this was all going to be ok, roses and
sunshine, hunky dorry 9460 the court said no. that's not what the president does. that's not what the white house does. that's not what you're allowed to do in america. regardless, the supreme court said, the recess appointments clause is not designed to overcome serious institutional friction. mr. speaker, we have serious institutional friction. i don't bemoan it, i celebrate it. i think friction was part of the process. turns out the court agrees with me. they go on to say, it simply provides a subsidiary method for appointing officials when the senate is a way in a recess. hence the word recess appointments clause. here as in other contexts, and other contexts, all these other issues the court now has on their plate from executive overreach, here's another confection. friction between the branches is an inevitable consequence of our constitutional stwruckture.
-- structure. mr. speaker, i'm just one vote in a 435-member institution. but my constituents would place that one vote on the side of being the article 1 legislature, rather than on the side of being the best republican america has ever seen. my constituents would ask me to place that vet on the side of being the legislative branch, that institution from which the ideas percolate, that part of the u.s. house that's close etc. to the american -- to people. they would ask me to pledge to be part of this institution. not the republican national committee. not the national republican congressional committee. not the democratic congressional campaign committee. not the democratic national committee. mr. speaker, we have an amazing opportunity an a solemn obligation in this institution.
my commitment is to be a good listening to all the policy concerns my colleagues have on the other side of the aisle. i'll be a good listener. i may not atpwhree with you but i'll give you a chance. but we have to be united on behalf of all of our constituents back home in saying that the constitution gives only one branch the ability to write the law. d that's the article 1 legislature. when we ignore the president, mr. speaker, we do so at our own peril, at institutional peril. when the president ignores the congress, he does so at his own peril, at executive branch peril. i was on the elevator with one of the great leaders of this institution, mr. john dingell out of michigan. he was on the elevator, a young democrat climbed on the elevator with him. the young democrat was complaining he didn't have a
personal relationship with the president. don't get to see enough of the president. the president is not on capitol hill enough. mr. dingell said, well, son, be careful what you wish for. remember l.b.j. we had l.b.j. over at the library of congress a book study just this week, different presidents handle their relationship with congress in different ways. some are involved too much, some are involved not enough. but every one is involved. mr. speaker, this is supposed to be a battle of ideas, not a bat osm ideology. this is supposed to be a battle of policy, not a battle of partisans. this is supposed to be an opportunity to succeed on behalf of folks back home, and i will tell you it's an opportunity we are losing when we unite ourselves based on red and blue as opposed to uniting ourselves based on article 1 and article 2. mr. speaker, with that, i yield
back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yeeltsdz back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for one minuteful ms. -- for one minute. ms. kaptur: i rise to encourage you to join with me and 69 of our colleagues, 0 already, who have signed on to co-sponsor h.r. 381, the return to prudent banking act. this bipartisan bill would restore the provisions of the glass-steagall banking law that separated prudent banking from wild speculation in the financial rem. yesterday -- realm. yesterday marked the 16th year to the day that congress repealed the glass-steagall act in 1999, bestowing on financial institutions and investment firms the ability to put the life savings and deposits of the american people at greater risk. i was one of the 67 members of
this congress who voted against that repeal of glass-steagall. at that time, my colleagues and i were told by wall street that the banks were strangled by outdate red stricks as the repeal was a modern experiment in deregulation, so congress repealed this bedrock law over our objections. look where that decision took america. we witnessed the terrible market crash in 2008. now slow growth and the outrageous, enormous accumulation of banking assets in a handful of institutions like j.p. morgan chase, goalman sachs, bank of america, they are raking in record shattering profits while paying depositors almost nothing on their interest or on certificates of deposit as wages for working class americans continue to flatline. the original glass-steagall act served our country well. it laid the foundation for an unprecedented half century without financial pan e-- pan irks or crises. just as porn, it contributed to
a right sized banking system, focused on serving our economy nd society as a whole rather than enriching itself at everyone's expense. e must replace the glass-steagall act. without these safeguards, it is just a matter of time before wall street steers america over the precipice. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor h.r. 381, the to return prudent banking act of 2015. help restore prudent discipline and sanity to our financial system and in turn, real economic growth to america. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek rick snigs -- recognition? r. woodall: i send to the desk a condition current resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution.
the clerk: resolved that when the house adjourns on any legislative day from november 5, 2015, to november 12, 2015, pursuant to this concurrent resolution it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, november 16, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this con surnt resolution chmbing occurs first and that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from tuesday november 10, 2015, through friday, november 13, 2015, on a motion offered by pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority lead over his designee it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on monday, november 16, 2015, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its majority leader or his designee and the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this con curn resolution, whichever occurs first. section 2-a. the speaker of his designee,
after consultation with the minority leader of the house, shall notify the members of the house to reassemble at such place and time as he may dez egg nate if in his opinion the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling pursuant o subsection a, when the house adjourns on a motion pursuant to this subsection by the majority leader of his designee, the house shall stan adjourned pursuant to the first section of this resolution. section 3-a, the majority leader of the senate or his designee, after concurrence with the minority leader of the senate, shall notify the members of the senate to reassemble at such place and time as he may dez egg nate if, in his opinion, the peculiar interest shall warrant it. bmbing, after reassembling pursuant to subsection a, when to the senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its majority leader of his designee, the senate shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. wood al: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourned today on a motion pursuant to this order it adjourn to meet on monday, november 9, 2015, unless it has sooner received a message from the senate in which case the senate shazz stand adjourned purr sune to that con current resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gomeerlt, for 30 minutes. - mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.
mr. gohmert: i do want to commend my friend from georgia, mr. speaker, he speaks eloquently. i hated to lose my dear friend john lender from here in this body a brilliant man with great class, but since he is gone, i am delighted to have rob woodall here in his stead. just clear thinking, articulate, and makes the case that the merican people need to hear. speaking of messages the american people need to hear, his is november 5, 2015. when a ovember 5, 2009, major in the united states army at fort hood, texas, who had
given plenty of warning signs that he was a ticking time bomb who was going to kill americans, particularly american soldiers, especially if he were ordered to go overseas, because he would much prefer to kill american soldiers than he would go overseas and risk killing a having heard about people in the united states army, as i was in for four years, who had to deal with it is appalling at political correctness led
to this man being allowed to remain in the military, ever being promoted, and being troubled counsel soldiers. incredible. but political correctness has become more and more proposal in the event. it was november 5 of 2009, president obama had been in office since january of that year. major has and -- haas aun had been in the military during the bush administration. he should have never been promoted. there were warning signs that we hear about after the fact, but nobody wanted to be the one to stand up and say this man is a
threat, he is a radical islamist and a threat to the unite states military and the that to the libes of our military members. our military l those victims down at fort hood, texas, before the shooting ever occurred. that is almost unbleerble, but what becomes unbearable is that six years later, victims who are still alive of major hassan e still being mistreated by this administration. in "the dailyones herald," today said six years
after november 5, 2009 shoong, at least one victim is fighting for overdue benefits. former staff serant alonzo said pain, betrayal, disspect and patriism all come to mind when he thinks about thatragic day and sa it's aot, a lot that goes through my head was shot seven times by hassan. the army psychiatrist who opened fire on unsuspecting fellow soldiers at a processing building for deploying soldiers. six years later, the building has been torn down. many of the soldiers who were there have moved oh, no longer in the army or stationed elsewhere.
hassan, an army major was found guilty of killing 12 soldiers and one civilian on august 23, court llowing a 12-day martial at fort hood. he is currently on death row, awaiting automatic appeals. it took congress battling and finally putting language in a bill that the army and the defense department finally could not ignore that finally put enough pressure on the army to do the right thing by these victims, and that is for heaven's sake. they were victims of an attack in the war against america by radical islam. as muslim friends in the middle east, leaders in the middle east who are muslim, have asked on
different visits i have had in the middle east, why is it that this administration does not islamists, adical particularly the muslim brotherhood is at war with the united states. you keep helping the people who are at war with you, the muslim brotherhood. they recognize it all over the middle east. muslims over there scratch their heads, moderate muslims, and wonder what's wrong with america. now i met a number of the shooting six he purplego today, when the hearts were finally awarded. a number of us were there from congress because it was an important day and they needed to
know, members of congress do care so we are there as representatives of this body and all of those within it, who recognize the loss and the sacrifice occurred at the hands of someone who is at war with the united states, a part of the bigger radical islamist movement. and it's rather ironic that as we think about and talk about the violations of the iran treaty -- yes, it is a treaty, despite the senate's unwillingness to call it what it is, but the violations of the iran treaty by iran are still resulting in this administration sending billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars to people who want to kill us and to eliminate our way
of life. yet, this administration sending billions and billions and billions of dollars to our enemy can't scrap together mere hundreds of dollars to send to someone like staff sergeant alonzo. the article says he is now in north carolina. i was impressed when i met him. he seems to be a very sharp man, a patriot, someone who cares about america, but like many of the victims, the wounds go even eeper than the shots that were fired. in his case seven times he was shot. what a horrible day. and yet this administration
to after theplices crime episode and damage by still refusing to acknowledge it these t it was and pay patriotic service members the money they have coming as people who were wounded in the line of uty. ridiculous that this administration will send billions and billions with all that is sent, we are going to be hamaso finance more, help more and hezbollah more. we are going to be able to help those who kill americans. and what does the obama administration do? they want to make sure nothing
gets in the way of sending money to people who kill americans and who have had killed americans. a report indicates that iran is responsible for at least 12% of the americans killed in iraq. i can't help but think based on those i have talked to in trips to iraq and those who have researched even further that when we get to the bottom line, there will likely be a lot more than 12%. ut even so, the country, the radical islamist leaders in charge are guilty of killing americans. and this administration rewards them by sending them money while hether it's intentional or
intentional neglect, refuses to acknowledge the patriotism and the act of war against our members of the united states army, the united states military and the one civilian that was lled, refuses to acknowledge and adequately appreciate those patriots that were killed or wounded in the line of duty in hassan.f war by major so the question arises if this administration either through neglect or intent is so calloused and uncaring towards , then military members what's going on now that is
going to result in future americans, military members being killed. how many more major hassans are there in the army, air force, navy, marines. god, i hope and pray that people like hassan are not still being promoted because nobody wants to in this administration -- under this administration, under this commander in chief say this guy is giving all the indications of being a radical islamist that will one day explode and kill americans? have seen record numbers of generals, officers with stars
being fired. we have seen -- and i personally -- i recognize edward snowden to be a traitor, but having tried felony cases, including death penalty cases and coupled with my experience here in congress of trying to advise and help whistleblowers and having seen this administration turn against whistleblowers, use their own department they work in to destroy their careers, use the department of justice to harris them, and if it's somebody that has very damaging evidence about wrongdoing by this administration, then they will convene a grand jury to investigate and harass, never mind that it drives a spouse to
a hospital, near breakdown. never mind the damage that it does to those patriotic whistleblowers who just want the government to do the right thing in all things. i have to recognize if i were sentencing edward snowden for his treason, that in this administration, someone were to come forth if edward snowden had done this and come before superiors in this administration , he would likely have been destroyed. a grand jury convened. attempts to put him in jail, attempts to destroy his evidence , that would have to be taken as evidence in mitigation of whatever the sentence was for the treason, because under this
administration, i have struggled with people who wanted to get through that. where do you go? eric holder as attorney general, was not going to help a whistleblower if they had information that was damaging to the administration. no. was the head of the largest criminal defense firm in america , defending the actions in this administration and going after and trying to destroy anybody who came forth with damaging evidence, particularly if it could have come before the election in 2012. a tta lynch will always be blot on the reputation of the united states senate because she made clear she thought that
things eric holder did in violation of the constitution in ntempt of congress the dishonesty, they were ok in her book and they confirmed here any way. so indications are that things haven't gotten any better than they were. what do you do if you are a patriotic whistleblower in this administration and you want to out an hassan. you want to come forward with documentation that shows this administration has acted inappropriately? it's been made clear to people, you raise your head up to try to speak up and speak truth, then we will make you rule the day
you ever worked for the overnment. so we won't help with mere hundreds of dollars to american patriots wounded in an act of war, and obviously 13 killed in an act of war by radical islamists. we won't even call radical islam what moderate muslims in the middle east recognize that it is . and a man of great courage that i think will end up being recognized as one of the great leaders of the middle east of president al sisi gets the back of the hand most of the time from this administration when he's had the courage to
stand up to imams in a room, looking them in the eye and say, it's time to take back our religion from the radicals. because of his courage, because of his recognizing the radical, the threat that radical islam is, not only to christians and jews but to moderate muslims, then there's no doubt there are people that want to kill him. when this administration ought to be doing everything they can to help him. i was asked by egyptian leaders, does your president not understand that the apache helicopters that he promised the muslim brotherhood -- the muslim brother morrissey that he withheld for so long, we use those to keep the suez canal open? does he not want the suez canal open? does president obama not care? that would certainly by the
indication if you look -- certainly be the indication if you look at the actions of this admferings. when i was in egypt in september, people who dez prattly want to be friends with yearn ted states, they for freedom. they yearn far strong egypt free of radical islam, even though they muslims themselves, they want to be friends with freedom-loving americans and yet with dozens and dozens and dozens of leaders from countries around the world, including russia, top leaders from countries around the world, being there to note the event in historic world history when egypt, after having gotten rid of the radical
islamist muslim brother morrissey who was refusing to keep his conduct within the requirements of their constitution, was removed after the biggest peaceful demonstration in the history of the world, over 30 million people are said to have gone to the streets to demand his removal, after more see's removed, people of vision like sisi took over and they dug another lane to the one suez canal, so there's two lanes for big part of it there. that was a historic day in june. the people of egypt should have en lauded by all of those in this administration. yet not only to d -- not only did this administration not care to recognize the great historic feat of egypt struggling as it
is to achieve greatness once again, they didn't even send anybody from washington. my friend daryl iis went. congress was -- darryl issa congress was represented. i wasn't there, because speaker boehner wasn't allowing people like me to travel. according to his staff, speaker boehner saw taxpayer funded travel as a reward for people that aparaphernalialy voted like he wanted them to, which kind of sounds like it would be a crime but nonetheless we did, we were represented. congress was represented there but not the administration. leaders from around the world were there. not this administration. it's time to recognize the good
muslims, the moderate muslims in the world with whom we can be friends, who want to be our friends who want to work with us and recognize those like the muslim brotherhood who want to destroy our way of life. nd it's time to stop the political correctness that got 13 people killed at fort hood six years ago today and got so many more wounded. so, what is, since this administration doesn't want to properly recognize efforts to keep the middle east peaceful and out of the hands of radical islamists like the muslim brotherhood, well, we had the iran treaty that this dministration pushed and the
senate refused to take up and vote on as a treaty. the corker bill clearly didn't apply because it -- the iranian about id include terms ballistic missiles, about weapons buying, about release of money under the sanctions. it did change the terms of the nonproliferation treaty. it was clearly a treaty. it really will be another blot reputation that they did not stop that by taking a vote on ratification, it wouldn't have gotten the 2/3 required and then we could have
prevented the $100 billion plus, $00 billion or so each year thereafter that will be going to a country that according to this news this week, where death to america stands despite the nuclear deal. this report dated november 2 from tehran says a clear majority of iranian legislators said monday the islamic republic will not abandon the slogan death to america despite its july nuclear accord with world powers. quote, the martyr nurturing nation of israel is not at all prepared to abandon the slogan of death to america under the pretext of a nuclear agreement, unquote. 192 members of iran's 290-seat parliament said in a statement carried by state news agency irna. they said the slogan chanted at
the weekly friday prayers in mosques and at protests had, quote, turned into the symbol of the islamic republic and all struggling nations. so let's look, mr. speaker, at what has occurred since the iran treaty that was not ratified was placed into being by this administration and by the senate looking the o'way. they've had ballistic missile tests. they've had joint military operations with russia and syria. those certainly violate the terms of the iran deal. they've had open violations of international travel bans. they've had a cyberattack from there. we've had arrests of u.s. resident zaka, death to america is still their chant.
and yet here's this story from october 21 by reuters, says the united states, britain, france, germany called on wednesday for the united nations security council's iran sanctions committee to take action over missile tests by tehran that they said violated a u.n. ban. in a letter detail -- in a letter contain degree tails of the launch, they said the ballistic missile was inherently capable of deliver agnew clear weapon. the letter, seen by reuters, was sent to the committee after the united states raise theds issue in the 15-member security council. quote, we trust that this information will assist the committee in its responsibility to examine and take appropriate action in response to violations of u.n. security council resolutions. diplomats have said it was possible for the sanctions committee to blacklist additional iranian individuals
or entities if it determined that the missile launch had breached the u.n. ban. however, they said russia and china, which opposed the sanctions on iran's missile program, might block any such moves. quote, the united states will continue to press the security council to respond effectively o any future violations, fully robust enforcement of all u.n. measures is and will remain critical. u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha powers said in a statement on wednesday. now, the reason the united states is -- sent this letter the ipated in it, asking u.n. to take appropriate action, is because this administration is gutless to do what needs to be done. you have iran, we now -- it's been confirmed they killed so
many hundreds responsible for he death of so many americans. and this administration struck a could l with them that never get 2/3 of the senate to ratify it, so we just act like it's a treaty that's ratified even though it isn't. but it's gutless to stand up to iran and say, you violated the deal. we're not going to allow 100 to -- not going to allow $100 billion to $150 billion to go to you while you continue to say death to america, you continue to have ballistic missile tests, you continue to have joint rerpgs in violation of our deal with russia and syria. you continue in open violation of international travel bans. you continue to attack us, have
cyberattacks from your country, and you continue to stir up violence against the united states. you're not getting any money. how about giving just a little bit of that $100 billion to the victims of nada hasan? how about -- of nidal hasan? how about giving it to the victims of radical islamic violence? how about giving it to the victims of over 400 days in captivity in iran under the ayatollah khomeini's leadership. this administration's got to act. this is outrageous. then we have international business times report, airline violates terms of nuclear deal by purchasing planes to use in the syrian war. this has -- this says one of iran's commercial airlines last week bought a u.k. manufactured jet with the aim of using it to
deliver iranian soldiers and weapons to syria. purchase of the aircraft by an anian represents a clear violation of the deal brokered by u.s. president barack obama. the iran deal needs to be brought to an end. no more money needs to go to iran. no money for killers, for terrorists, but money to the victims in our united states military. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does thelt -- does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: pursuant to thed orer of the house today, house concurrent resolution 92, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, pursuant to the previous order of the house of